Step Mashing

I've seen a lot of posts and recipes that call for step mashing. I just recently went to a Brewing Huddle where one of the guest speakers brought up that all the step mashing recipes are from older times.

The grains a few years back (not exactly how long ago that was) weren't as modified as they are now and actually doing step mashing can cause more harm then good. This guy has place multiple times in Brewing Competitions and has actually brought home Gold at national.

Is step mashing a thing of the past?

Nope, I do it on occasion. I just did it the last time I brewed AAMOF. My Imperial IPA took 39 lbs of grain. I thought I had enough water for the first infusion to not run the pump dry. Boy was I wrong. I had to add the infusion water for mash out while still mashing. I didn't exceed the 152f temp I was shooting for, but had to do a temp step with my RIMS tube to bring it from 152 to the mash out of 168.

If you use a lot of unmalted grains, it's a good idea to use step mashes. For instance, when using raw wheat in a Wit, it's good to do a beta-glucan rest. Also, not all malted grains are created equal. Rahr pils malt, for instance, is less-modified than other domestic 2-row malts. Some European malts are also less-modified, and also some wheat malts are not "fully-modified." So it's a good idea to look at the actual grain analysis before assuming anything about the level of modification.

Here's a good resource for understanding malt analysis sheets:
http://brewingtechniques.com/bmg/noonan.html

I go back and forth on step mashing. I get better clarity and a fuller body when I do a short rest around 120-130* than I do when I use a single infusion. I personally prefer my beer when I make it with a step mash, even with "fully-modified" malts with very low fine/coarse grind differences.

That said, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and all that, and I know people make clear beer with a full body without step mashing.

The two base grains I use all the time are from a local maltster, and they're red wheat and a regular 2-row. The 2-row has 11% protein, a soluble protein ratio of 43%, and a fine/coarse grind difference of only 0.3%. This malt would be considered "fully-modified." The red wheat has a fine/coarse grind difference of 1.4%, 15% protein, and a soluble protein ratio of 34%, which is on the outside of the range for "modern" malts. Mashes with the red wheat greatly benefit from a protein rest. A protein rest wouldn't be strictly necessary when using only the 2-row.

Nateo said:

If you use a lot of unmalted grains, it's a good idea to use step mashes. For instance, when using raw wheat in a Wit, it's good to do a beta-glucan rest. Also, not all malted grains are created equal. Rahr pils malt, for instance, is less-modified than other domestic 2-row malts. Some European malts are also less-modified, and also some wheat malts are not "fully-modified." So it's a good idea to look at the actual grain analysis before assuming anything about the level of modification.

Here's a good resource for understanding malt analysis sheets:
http://brewingtechniques.com/bmg/noonan.html

I go back and forth on step mashing. I get better clarity and a fuller body when I do a short rest around 120-130* than I do when I use a single infusion. I personally prefer my beer when I make it with a step mash, even with "fully-modified" malts with very low fine/coarse grind differences.

That said, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and all that, and I know people make clear beer with a full body without step mashing.

The two base grains I use all the time are from a local maltster, and they're red wheat and a regular 2-row. The 2-row has 11% protein and a fine/coarse grind difference of only 0.3%. This malt would be considered "fully-modified." The red wheat has a fine/coarse grind difference of 1.4% and 15% protein, which is on the upper end for modern malts. Mashes with the red wheat greatly benefit from a protein rest. A protein rest wouldn't be strictly necessary when using only the 2-row.

Click to expand...

Malt modification is best indicated by S/T (soluble/total protein ratio), also sometimes listed as SNR (soluble nitrogen ratio). Just thought it interesting you made no mention of it in your post, but rather total protein, which doesn't really say a whole lot about the degree of modification.

For instance, typical American 2-row barley malt is generally more fully-modified than a similar European barley malt, despite the fact that that American barley malts have much higher total protein. Your red wheat malt has an even higher total protein, simply because wheat has more total protein by weight (I believe this is at least partially due to the lack of a husk), and isn't necessarily indicative of modification.

But, before I get jumped on, fine/coarse grind difference is also a useful indicator of modification, which you DID mention. I'm just genuinely wondering why you seemed to be talking about total protein in the context of malt modification. As far as I know, using total protein in any useful way is really only possible when considered in terms of the entire grain bill - if the overall protein is too low (e.g. from using adjuncts without enough higher-protein malts), you'll end up with a beer with a crappy head and no body, and yeast health might even suffer; if the overall protein is too high, you can run into lautering problems and chill haze issues).

emjay said:

Malt modification is best indicated by S/T (soluble/total protein ratio), also sometimes listed as SNR (soluble nitrogen ratio). Just thought it interesting you made no mention of it in your post, but rather total protein, which doesn't really say a whole lot about the degree of modification.

Click to expand...

I realized (and fixed) that right after I posted the comment.

Nateo said:

I realized (and fixed) that right after I posted the comment.

Click to expand...

Oh okay! Thought maybe I was missing something